Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and, having heard him and the tributes that have been paid to him, I can see how well deserved they are along with the thanks owed by your Lordships to him and his colleagues who have done so much work. This is an important Bill and one that in the round I support with enthusiasm. Even where I have misgivings, I think it is capable of improvement. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, I found the Minister’s enthusiasm infectious. We can all share the sense of vision that he provided and I congratulate the Government on introducing the Bill. I am delighted that a number of my noble friends and other noble Lords have been critical in detail: they have mastery of which I am not capable and my approach will be rather broader-brush. This measure will have a profound impact on my family, my family business and the lives of everyone who lives near me on the shores of Morecombe Bay in Cumbria, especially the farmers and the local fishing community. I therefore declare an interest, or rather a series of interests. I have a beneficial interest in several miles of estuary coast—the salt marshes, adjacent land and associated rivers. Ownership of this interest extends in certain areas and very unusually to what would normally be perceived as the seabed. The only other case of this in the country is my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. A further interest ties in with land ownership: as a family company we have been involved with bringing farmers together, especially since the foot-and-mouth crisis, with a view to producing specialist food of high quality. There has been a considerable investment in production and marketing. A case in point would be the lambs which are finished on the salt marshes. They produce an unusual meat, which deservedly commands a premium. The process is supported by environmentalists and there are parallel initiatives with non-intensive beef on the immediate hinterland of the coast. It is thought good practice for such cattle to poach newly formed wetlands, to make them rougher still. There are a number of these initiatives which, although they do not amount to a great deal, give encouragement to farmers in what is still a very discouraged sector. Those interests could be damaged by this Bill but, if handled with intelligence and sensitivity, they need not be damaged. For the next point I want to raise I am required also to declare an interest. I am involved with the work of the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, of which I am president. The trust warmly welcomes this Bill, especially in so far as it affects migratory salmonids and eels. The trust is mainly concerned with what happens in river and lake habitats. Among the river trusts throughout the country, a hugely valuable stock of knowledge and understanding has accumulated through their own work and through the partnerships they have built with the Environment Agency and others. I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury speak on that subject. A great gap in knowledge occurs through not knowing what happens at sea. We feel that, as a consequence of this measure, that gap will be closed to the huge advantage of both river and still-water fisheries and associated wildlife. Among the numerous species whose exploitation will apparently be controlled under this measure are sand eels. If I am right about this, there is much to celebrate. Apart from the benefits to bird life, the restoration of sand-eel populations will give an enormous boost to migratory fish, especially to sea trout, which is one of the species worst affected by over-harvesting of sand eels. I would not claim to be an expert on the common or European eel. Suffice it to say that it is thought to be 90 per cent less common than it should be in our inland fisheries. It is not clear why that is the case, but again exploitation, and especially exploitation of the juvenile population, seems to be the chief suspect. These small, transparent creatures, sometimes known as glass eels, are regarded in some countries as a tremendous delicacy and therefore command huge prices. I am sorry to go on about this minority fish, but at various stages of its life the eel is an important source of food for all sorts of species. Young eels are an important part of the brown trout’s diet and adults have an even greater significance. It is believed that the whole cycle of predation has been distorted by the shortage of eels. For example, the otter will take an eel in preference to a game fish. If it cannot get an eel, the balance is upset. The protection that many experts believe will be offered to eels by the Bill may not appear significant on the face of it. However, when one starts to consider the downstream effects of restoring the balance of just one species, one sees that the benefits to the natural world increase exponentially to the point where it becomes highly significant. While I am hugely encouraged by the advances offered by the Bill, they will count for nothing if glass eel exploitation is not controlled in the rivers. The Environment Agency is quiet on the matter, by which I mean its website has collapsed, as it very often does. I do not know what its current position is on this, but it used to offer very cheap licences to harvest these creatures. I believe that the Environment Agency has powers to act under Clause 7, but will it be compelled to act? It would be pointless if one part of the Bill was negated by the absence of action in another area. My final personal interest stems from my company’s efforts to control access to the foreshore in order to protect local fishermen when the gangs famously raided the cockle beds of Morecambe Bay, and our subsequent attempts to co-ordinate local fishermen into forming groups which could regain the initiative and fish responsibly and profitably thereafter. It has been slow and frustrating work. They are rather tribal and whenever we have a meeting they finish up by saying how much they hate each others’ guts. I still hope to draw them together. It seems to me that the Bill makes it far easier for such groups to come together and for sustainable fisheries to result from that. I am bound to say how deeply shocked local people were at how the local agencies of the state effectively turned a blind eye to the most monstrous abuses perpetrated by these foreign cockle gangs. Laws and regulations in respect of trespass, marine regulation, health and safety, conservation, trading standards and anti-social behaviour were all wantonly broken pretty much with impunity. Many local people felt that this contrasted with the officiousness with which authority bears down on the smallest and often unintended transgression on the part of ordinary, mainly law-abiding people. I say that because the success of this measure—and it deserves to be successful—will depend as much on the way in which it is applied as on what appears in the Bill. That point was made powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I say this with regret, but the clear perception is that the plethora of powerful agencies that impact on our lives in rural Britain gets daily less lovable, and therefore less loved, and worse, less trusted. The weaker and more vulnerable the citizen, the more harassed he feels. Only last week, a man listed for me 32 different badged officials who are entitled to come on to his coastal farm in order to inspect one aspect or other of his very straightforward agricultural operation. It is to be hoped that this Bill will not spawn another army of public sector officials; it will be largely self-defeating if it does. Still, it is interesting to reflect that if the Bill had been in force in February 2004, the lives of 23 Chinese cockle pickers might have been spared. It is hugely significant. Given the interests I have declared, I hardly think I would be believed if I were to say that I warmly welcome the part of the Bill dealing with coastal access. I am concerned that there has been a missed opportunity and that a continuous coastal walk is perhaps not what people most want or need. That is based on my own experience and on the evidence I have trawled through. It is my contention that with the very limited budget proposed more could be done for the majority of people who want more access to the coast and a better experience when they get there. I acknowledge, of course, that the term ““coastal access”” has a very attractive ring to it, and that when people are asked what they would say to being offered vastly increased rights over other people's land, their reply is likely to be something of a no-brainer. The reality, of course, is that much of our coast is ugly, dangerous, inhospitable and virtually incapable of being maintained in a safe state. I looked through much of the pre-legislative scrutiny. Like my noble friend Lord Taylor, I do not know why it falls to Natural England to do the job set by the Bill. I should have thought that nothing in Natural England’s predecessor's existence suggested that it was qualified to do it, and the new lot have hardly got their feet under the table. As a former local government person, and therefore prejudiced, I should have thought that local government had the experience, authority and, in large measure, the trust to do the job. This should be a good moment to face up to the self-evident truth that man and the natural world are terribly ill-suited to each other's company. Perhaps that is the rationale of the Bill; both man and the natural world have legitimate but conflicting claims. There can be no ““winner takes all”” and therefore a balance has to be struck, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out. The measure might work but leaves out owners and those who derive their livelihood from the land. The notion that marathon walkers will help the economy through tourism is a canard. However, benefits could accrue to the economy if we stopped the war of attrition against farmers. Given the state of the pound, it is time to consider whether we could not become a little more self-sufficient as regards food production. The overwhelming majority of people who will wish to walk the coast will be law-abiding and welcome. In 35 years, I cannot think of a single complaint made locally against the Ramblers; I certainly have none. I suppose that I could make the mild suggestion that the loveliness of the countryside is not enhanced by the much favoured synthetic primary colours that seem to be the uniform of many walkers. The problems in the country are twofold. The first lies with those who take advantage of the new rights to come on to private land with the intention of poaching, vandalising and stealing. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not in his place because when I objected that crime was a threat during the right to roam debate, he made quite a joke of it. His light-hearted encouragement has borne fruit; rural crime is increasing. He is entitled to laugh if I lose a few thousand pounds worth of kit, but for a struggling farmer it is a very serious matter indeed, and it happens. I have an even greater worry concerning the damage innocently inflicted on land by people who do not understand the dynamics of the country and leave gates open with catastrophic effects. Fire is another great danger. Asking for a robust appeal system, as has emerged in consultation and in the pre-legislative scrutiny, sounds too much like special pleading from me, and I shall leave that to others. I have tried, and so far failed, to find a continuous route over my stretch of the coast. The nearest I came to it, according to a back-of-envelope calculation, would result in there being little change from the whole £60 million allocated if it were to be a safe and happy experience. Others might do better. A sensible solution in my case would be to upgrade the old and absolutely beautiful coastal way a little way inland, enhancing, as I have already suggested, the access to various places which are fit for purpose on the coast. That would be much more cost-effective. However, I keep an open mind. The important thing is for these matters to be discussed. It would be disastrous if measures are imposed. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, sadly, is not in her place, spoke about risk. I agree with her that we have become far too risk averse. However, it is one thing for her to advocate risk and quite another for her risk to become my liability as she sinks in my local quicksands. I will be tremendously keen to pull her out if I am there. I have rescued at least six people from the quicksands or from being overwhelmed by the tide. Local fishermen have got lost in the fog and become disoriented. This very weekend, I watched a 9.4 metre tide—imagine where that comes to in your Lordships’ House—which came in not when it was scheduled to, but as I have never seen it come in before. It has to be accepted that it is a dangerous environment. Can the Minister tell the House what liabilities landowners and land users face as a result of the Bill? In the private sector we have to have a risk assessment merely to blow our noses. Has the Minister done his risk assessment and what was the result? Does he accept that lives will be endangered through this Bill? I shall close on a positive note. The Bill offers a huge potential for good and I wish it safe passage.